Just speaking as a Bostonian, I don't know anyone around me so far who has really cared about the race or religion of the bombers. It is informative to know who hit you, but you won't be seeing "reprisal" attacks anytime soon on the streets of Boston..a flurry of knee-jerk security measures, and the bombers' identities being used as a political tool, of course, but beyond that? I don't see it happening. Foreigners in a lot of areas here outnumber the natives anyways.

I wish that were true but there is already a report of a man attacking a muslim women for the bombings..Some US meida have been very irresponsible in their reporting...If these men were radicalized..and isolated it would stand to reason they were arrogant as well...

It is much like the radical right in the US who think they have a monopoly on the 'truth' and act to eliminate every perceived obstruction to their cause! 'Salafist Sharia christians' do similar things in their arrogance... restricting rights and attempting to rule over women and others...

The climate of the patriarchal religious zealots is a scourge on the World!

it's pretty easy confirmation you're a bigot if your mind continuously returns to your favorite hatreds. maybe you should do a little more to hide your bigotry against christians, I understand its hard as a bigot to not think of the thing you hate while some completely other group commits an act you wish you could attribute to your prefered hatreds.

you're probably in the same position a member of the KKK is in when a white person robs a convenience store, "damn he robbed that store just like a black person!"

How well you live up [or down] to binkis1's expectation. You have described the right-wing to a TEA. Though more obvious on the BBC, the right-wing "real Americans" [as they think of themselves] couldn't even hold back their diatribes against against President Obama until this terrible ordeal has been ended.

It is disgusting that these people can't give their conspiracy theories, racist [see Kenyan Communist/Nazi posts] garbage, etc. even a few days rest.

They think they represent America, but they are a shrinking minority. The average, patriotic American sees these rants, at this time, for what they are.

People around Boston are real Americans. We support our government, we help and support our law enforcement, and we despise xenophobic, totalitarian, ultra-religious, conspiracy-believing, gun-toting, un-American lunatics.

Something is wrong here: you despise "ultra-religious" of all stripes or only certain kind of them?

The four victims of the Chechen brothers have hardly been buried, and you already defend the perpetrators... who are ultra-religious and gun (and explosive cookers) toting. Why this exception for foreign totalitarians?

So you turn an attack by muslims into a reason to denigrate christians in the United States? I'm not a christian myself, but that's just low. A forum discussing a recent terrorist attack is no place for petty politics.

I excepted nobody, any exception is in your fevered mind. Lunatics are no more holy with Bible in hand than with Koran. Abomination by Westboro Baptists is not less abominable than the like committed by any other miserable, fundamentalist cult.

Unfortunately, he is one of those left wing bigots who thinks that anyone who disagrees with his oh-so-enlightened opinion *must* be some kind of demi-human. Muslims who go on murderous rampages are given a pass because they must have been provoked somehow by these demi-humans.

Unfortunately, you can type until you have stage 4 carpal tunnel syndrome, and it will not ever dawn on him that he is at best inconsistent and at worst hypocritical.

No, this exception clearly exists in your original post to which I responded. But why I bother to reason with you? As commenter Modern Publius reminds us, you're a left-wing bigot, so reason is totally alien to you. One of your beloved "intellectual ideologists", Michael Moore, already accused Americans for these two jihadis' atrocity. Just like you. Birds of feather, eh?

You and your sycophants are perfect examples of projection. You are projecting your own thought process on others. You should try to think outside your FOX ideological box.

I am becoming a bit more irritated with the closed minds on the right, and that shows in my writing. Your own opinions remind me of "Animal Farm" and "1984."

The US Constitution provides freedom for all, not just self-described "real Americans." Those who speak of freedom while trying to take other people's freedom away are, Right or Left, enemies of freedom.

The Tsarnaevs’ mother, Zubeidat, told Russia Today that her son had been monitored by the FBI on Skype, and actually spoke with him “every step of the way.” She said, “They used to come [to our] home, they used to talk to me … they were telling me that he was really an extremist leader and that they were afraid of him. They told me whatever information he is getting, he gets from these extremist sites…"
.
Are you satisfied now?

My ideology is just common sense, but if I needed to choose between what you call FOX ideology and Marxian fallacy as professed by Michael Moore, Bill Ayers, Saul Alinsky and Obama, and by which you're totally zombied, - I surely would prefer the former.

She was confirming that that was what was told to her...Not confirming anything..
As to common sense..hardly when screaming about all those supposed connections that where ginned up about President Obama. As fringe as you get believing limpbow and fux...

It's ironic that yesterday, before the identity of the two killers was known, based on the CCTV footage the Boston police were describing them as "white,... I mean Caucasians..." i.e. they were not black, not even "sun-burned"... Little did the police know then that they were bang on target! Nevertheless, isn't it about time to banish this meaningless C-word from physical/racial descriptions?

Indeed, and that is why the term caucasian is so opportunistically used when it fits the Liberal anti-white agenda.

The Trevor Martin killer was by all US ethnic parameters (albeit quite wrongly defined) a "latino". But suddenly, when the victim was a black kid, then the killer was not "just" latino, but a "WHITE" latino; so the "white" part of the adjective comes in handy.

Hey have to make that point - otherwise how can the media "connect" minority kid dying in the hands of "another" minority guy?

Just for your information, Mr Invert Racist, there is, for instance, Abyssinian branch of Caucasian people... several Ethiopian tribes belong to it. How white are they? So much for your "learned" comment.

If Islam is the primary determinant of terrorism, why have there been virtually zero terrorist attacks by Turks? Unlike other Muslim countries, Turkey did not suffer from any past imperialist oppression.
Perhaps the latter is a better predictor of terrorism.

Bangladesh was part of British Raj.
I should have wrote imperialist meddling, instead of oppression. The borders of the Middle East outside of Turkey and Israel, who both won their own independence wars, were drawn by Western imperialists.

Not only that - you know nothing about Turkey, too. Obviously, the name Bozkurtlar (Grey Wolves) doesn't tell you anything. Is Maraş Massacre on 21 December 1978 of hundreds, perhaps thousands, of Alevis by Grey Wolves, sufficient for you to think "terrorism"?
.
Does the name Mehmet Ali Agca rings any bells? This member of Grey Wolves murdered left-wing journalist Abdi İpekçi on February 1, 1979 and later shot and wounded Pope John Paul II on May 13, 1981.
.
So your comment is just common pseudo-progressive twaddle: no knowledge, no sense, all lame Lefty propaganda.

You might recall that those westerners fought off and defeated the middle east, in the form of the Ottoman empire, in the first world war. I don't see any fanatical Germans, Italians, or Japanese attempting terrorist attacks on Americans.

Right and left wing loons [apologies to the avians offended by the comparison] are both out with distortions and half- [or less] baked conspiracies and revisionist histories.
.
Neither side understands that the Sultan of Turkey [Ottoman Empire] was also the Khalif of Islam. Some even think the Ottomans attacked the Central powers instead of being dragooned by the Germans and Austrians into joining them. They were then attacked and dismembered by the Allies.
.
The west may be doomed, judging by the lack of intelligence and historical knowledge. They are definitely for the birds.

Turkey has more than their share of terrorists. They just don't happen to operate in the US. The Islamic brand of terrorism does not depend on imperialist oppression, but on perceived ethnic and religious differences. That is why that vast majority of the victims of Islamic terrorism are Muslims. The differences are more easily seen by the different ethnic groups, and Muslims are the most readily available targets for Islamic terrorism.

Where do these Turkish terrorists operate? Turkish diaspora is entirely located in "the West". Very few Turks live in other Muslim countries.
Have there been any terrorist attacks in Germany by Turkish immigrants? What about anywhere else in Europe? Pope assassin has already been addressed in a prior post.
Please remind me, because I cannot think of one terrorist attack.
Islam alone does not explain terrorism.

You can claim colonialism, but like everyone else said already, plenty of terrorists (if not most) came from countries that were never colonies to begin with and several other previously occupied colonies have produced to terrorists to think of. Not to mention, the US was never a colonial power (it was a colony...) so your logic makes no sense anyway.

Another popular argument is poverty, except the problem is that plenty of terrorists are people of means (for example, Bin Laden and literally every other senior Al Qaeda member, all of the 9/11 hijackers, dozens of doctors and engineers who are now serving life sentences, etc.) and there are plenty of destitute countries that have once again produced no terrorists to speak of.

I am in no way saying all or even most Muslims are terrorists -- obviously the overwhelming majority are not. And given this fact, it shouldn't be all that confusing to you that Turkey hasn't produced a large number of terrorists.

But nonetheless, the fact still stands that the one trait most terrorists have in common, and its best indicator, is whether or not a person is a Muslim.

Your facts are wrong. The US was a colonial power, having taken Puerto Rico, Cuba, Guam and the Philippines away from Spain. When the Philippinos continued their rebellion, originally launched against Spain, the US military put it down.

There has been an ongoing Muslim-terrorist-pirate rebellion [Moro Islamic Liberation Front] in the Philippines since at least the 1960s.

I believe the Turks migrated westward form their homeland in Central Asia over centuries westward - culminating perhaps in Mustafa Kemal's Westward cultural push.
This forced injection of secular values into Turkey's Islamic heritage may account for the lack of Turkish Jihadists thus far.
That may change as the AKP labors intensely to pull Turkey's people back to a more traditional muslim mindset.
If the above is true, then your point about Turkey only supports the notion that Islam ( and I would add Muhammeds use of violence to achieve his political and religious goals )is a key factor in justifying violence by Jihadists against innocents today.

A person from Turkey tried to shoot the Pope in 1981.
`
Around the late 1970s there was left-right terrorism in Turkey before the army moved in around 1980.
`
Otherwise, depends on who you consider a Turk, and what is terrorist. There had been an insurgency by the PKK, an Kurdish group. There may be others.

"The borders of the Middle East outside of Turkey and Israel, who both won their own independence wars, were drawn by Western imperialists."
`
If you consider Iran part of the middle east, then you seem to leave out the Russians.
`
Then there is the case of the Sauds constructing their Arabian polity, which including ejecting the Hashemites, friends of the British, from the Hejaz.
`
In general, the Sauds set up their own country (reconstituted it) in the 1930s, and then were able to do business with the US on their own terms (see picture of FDR and the King during WWII).
`
So Saudia Arabia is a local creation. Yes, I realize they got aid from the British during WWI and in the 1920s, but when the country was really established and entrenched, it was due to the effort of the Sauds.
`
I believe the separation between Syria/Palestine and Egypt was already established in some form by the Turks years before Europeans came around (Napoleon?). The Sinai made a natural border. I would have to check old maps, but believe that was the case.

They operate in Turkey. Turkey has an ongoing war between ethnic Turks and Kurds.

Islam does not explain terrorism not associated with Islam. But it does explain terrorism tied to Islamic beliefs. The vast majority of victims of Islamic terrorism are fellow Muslims. That is why you are indifferent to it.

You just love to distort facts, dontcha? Unlike Guam, Puerto Rico, and the Philippines, the United States did not annex Cuba. Admittedly, Cuban independence was substantially restricted by the US, who actually had served this independence to the island on a silver plate. However, Cuba was never American colony, not even one day...
And please remind me what does it have to do with Boston bombers? Was Chechnya, or Dagestan, or Kyrgyzstan ever colonies of the United States?

My dear picker of nits. I said that the US took Cuba away from Spain. Prove me wrong if you can. After the war the US had colonies and was a colonial power. Prove that wrong if you can.

We occupied Cuba from 1905 to 1909 It went from being a colony of Spain to US occupation, never having been independent. Prove me wrong if you can.

It was not kept [except for the perpetual lease on Guantanamo], and you can quibble about whether it was a colony. So what was it's legal status then?

And I did not say that Cuba became a colony of the US, I listed the colonies taken from Spain and then wrote ONLY about the Philippines because of the relationship suggested between colonialism and Islamic jihadism. You have a point only if you intend, fatuously, to imply that Cuba is a source of Islamic Jihad.

Now another well rehearsed adage of yours: 'I haven't said this' and 'I haven't meant that'... very easy to disprove, but why would I bother? Just the first statement, "the US took Cuba away from Spain", is sufficient to show your bias. Cuba was liberated by the US, and a prolonged and bloody civil war was ended thanks to the US involvement.
.
Anyway, the topic of this discussion is Islamic jihad, and the Tsarnaev brothers - Mohammedan terrorists whose whole family lived for years in Massachusetts, with branches in Canada and DC. At least their noble example hints on the US as colony for a variety of Wogistans, not the other way around, huh?
.
In a hostel in Watertown in 2005 I lived next door to a Chechen guy, a civil engineer. To me, he appeared to be a regular, decent person. Aspired to stay in the US, to find a job... we spoke at length over tea (as a Moslem, he didn't drink alcohol). Then, all of a sudden, he stopped any communication and walked pass me like I were an empty place. I struggled to recall if I had inadvertently insulted him somehow. And then the manager explained it to me - my Chechen buddy caught a sight of the pendant I wear. Star of David... That's what has put an end to our budding companionship.

You are straw-man stuffer extraordinaire. When proven wrong you refuse to admit it but make an attack that is loosely [if at all] related to what you are attacking. I do not understand the usual results from your odd version of mental contortion. You distort what you see, attack what is not there and add insult to your reply.

I must also complement you on your so creative continued use of the pejorative "Mohammedan." I am sure you would not react in a happy fashion to any of the pejoratives used for people of Jewish faith or ethnicity. But continue to show racism [a perverse Antisemitism] in your posts, it suits you.

I had forgotten why I was avoiding reading your posts and replying to them. I now must thank you for the refresher. I'll make a note and post it on my computer. Sheol awaits you, too bad it isn't a more unpleasant destination.

Before you retreat to your Ivory Tower, would you please explain how "Mohammedan" is pejorative - but I mean explanation, not just Muslim activists' pronouncement that it somehow is?
.
Cuz we see a lot of this word hijacking around: Negro was a perfectly neutral word, unlike the "N" word (though certain group of people, but not others, are allowed to use it freely and publicly); so the acceptable word became "black"; now it's half outlawed, too - one should use African-American (though 99% of those referred to by this hyphenated term have never stepped on African soil, have no such intention, and know close to nothing about their African ancestors).
.
Now the political correctness commissars, all of a sudden, try to insert into the word "Mohammedan" something which is not there. "Christian" is derived from Christ; "Mosaic" and "Abrahamic" from Moses and Abraham; "Mohammedan" from Mohammed; "Buddhist" from Buddha... the list can be continued. Point if you can to any substantial, principle difference between all of them, could you?
.
So yes, I use this term deliberately, but not because of some "racism" (actually, the politically correct position is that races don't exist - ergo, racism doesn't exist, too; and there is no Muslim or Mohammedan or Islamic race to begin with) but in defiance to the aforementioned commissars.

Lets step back and ask a simple question. Do the deaths (4) and injuries (150) caused by this bombing and shooting spree warrant this much media attention?

A whole town in Texas has been destroyed by a fertilizer plant explosion. At least 20 dead, with 200+ injuries. Where is the media attention?

How many terrorist attacks have there been since 9/11? Very, very few. Its rare because most people do not consider shooting sprees to be terrorist attacks. Perhaps because the perpetrators were not of Muslim heritage.

Based on the last eleven years since 9/11, many more Americans will die from crumbling infrastructure and shooting sprees from non-Muslim Americans compared to terrorist attacks by foreign or naturalized Muslims.

The greater dangers to America is in plain sight. But its so much easier to demonize the remote "other".

Timothy McVeigh wasn't Muslim. Oddly, we've come to associate terrorism with bombs or other unconventional weapons. We could make the distinction that terrorism has a political agenda but if someone fed up with US foreign policy shot up a school, would we call that terrorism?

As for the media attention, I suspect it's because:
1. It was intentional. We're fascinated by the criminal mind.
2. It could possibly be part of a larger plot.
3. The bombing was so public.

Do I read you correctly? The fact that some people may die from crumbling infrastructure or shooting sprees, or explosions in fertilizer factories, does that, in your opinion, excuse (or justify?) terrorist acts killing fewer people?

The answer to your first question is "yes," emphatically. The people want to know that persons who commit such heinous crimes will be apprehended quickly and receive their due.

The industrial accident in West, Texas is receiving appropriate media attention. The people are not in imminent danger of further loss of life. No doubt this incident will receive the attention it deserves in order to improve safety standards for such plants, but there is plenty of time for this.

Perhaps the media are better judges of what their readers and listeners want than you are. It is their business, after all.

And by the way, non-Muslim American terrorists receive plenty of media attention when appropriate. It is not yet clear whether these two, although of Muslim heritage, were particularly motivated by Islam. It doesn't matter. What matters is their deeds.

Yeah mate, the only way is to nationalize all the private businesses and to employ millions of "civil servants" who are not good for any real job to regulate and inspect them to the hilt - that'll do everyone happy!
.
Oh wait... it's already tried by Marxist regimes... leads to more accidents and many more deaths. Nah, Marxian recipe won't work.

"Crumbling infrastructure"? Really? I've never been killed by a pothole, and honestly I've never lived in any region of the United States that I could characterize as crumbling. Perhaps because I avoid living in the rust belt and northeast. Those states/regions need to fix their own problems.

How exactly does a company profit from the loss of a fertilizer plant? That's not for-profit corporate neglect. It's for-loss corporate neglect, for which the parent company will be a heavy price for. Not to mention the lawsuits that will soon follow.

Yeah we need to remove the profit motive and have government oversight. Chernobyl should be an example for all cities of what we can achieve without greedy capitalists. By the way, I've been in a coma since 1985. Any updates on the city of the future?

"It also seems that young disaffected white guy loner/losers have an affinity to shoot up schools/blow up kids."

Serial or one time event killers in the US do not have a coherent message, raison de etre, or consistent political goal. The thing that unites them is mental instability.

That is differnt to jihadists. Regardless of the methodology and tools used, they do have a higher political and ideological goal.

That is why I've said that Political Terrorism in the US is limited to the Tim McViegh types, of which I only know one, Mr McViegh himself. The shooting guys in schools and theaters are simply and mostly mentally ill, and their grieves is not about others but about themselves:

Yeah, but the whole leftist anarchist terror thing died out a long time ago and hasn't come back in the slightest since. It turns out, far left politics isn't eternal and people outgrow it, which is more than can be said for Islam (or any other religion which claims to hold the truth of the universe for all eternity).

Even pro-lifer terrorism has pretty much died out. It just isn't seen as productive or acceptable to kill people anymore, for almost anyone from KKK members to IRA extremists. Except for radical Islamists of course.

"Do the deaths (4) and injuries (150) caused by this bombing and shooting spree warrant this much media attention?

A whole town in Texas has been destroyed by a fertilizer plant explosion. At least 20 dead, with 200+ injuries. Where is the media attention?"

- Lets just put it this way - Imagine 2 scenarios -

A. North Korea kills 10 South Korea soldiers through an artillery barrage

B. A bus somewhere in Seoul meets with an accident resulting in the deaths of 10 people

Would you argue for equal media attention in both cases? Because that's precisely what you're proposing here.

One was a wanton act of terror. The other, an accident. A world of difference mainly because deaths from an aggressive act (whether invasion or terror) warrant fear about FUTURE acts. An accident DOES NOT.

"crumbling infrastructure"
`
You need to get out more - The US is a big country.
`
You certainly couldn't drive 75 miles an hour in driving rain, for three hours in Japan, Britain or the UK. You could on I-90, in upstate NY.
`
I know, having driven extensively in each of those locales.
`
Otherwise, roads and airports are generally good and built for growth in the south.
`
Roads are good out west.
`
Commercial rail is some of the most efficient (with the exception of getting across Chicago).
`
Conversely, NY seems run down. But you have lots of people, lots of traffic, and lots of variation of weather.
`
Not many folks in Tokyo, London, Paris, Singapore have seen long trails of sparks from the blades of plows clearing snow on a highway. Its a pretty sight at night.

"Every week we read of 100 deaths due to terrorist attacks. But the deaths are almost always Muslims,"
'
Interesting point since it is often the result of Jihadist/sectarian fighting, by people at least self-described as Muslim.
`
Notably, the UN estimates have been consistent over the past few years on attributing civilian deaths to Taliban activities - from 76% in 2009 to 81% in 2012.
`
Then there is the creepy Salafist/Jihadist pretense of saying they can declare a Muslim a non-Muslim, and proceed to kill them without feeling bad about it.

The poster above me, was lamenting that the coverage for the fertilizer plant was not to their liking...I was responding to the fact that it was a for profit company that had not been inspected and was less than candid on their reporting!

FOX/GOP/TEA/NRA Propaganda network tells the credulous that The President of the US is a Kenyan Communist Islamist who wants to destroy the US. You might as well get your information from Pravda, Chinese People's Daily or the Onion.

It's true that Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac cost the world a lot of money. Wall St. is a huge net positive while hardly anything good came out of Chernobyl. That's the problem with you socialists. The answer is always government. Capitalists screw up? More government. The government screws up? More government. Capitalists are doing well? Take those profits for government.

The Wall Street financial crisis of 2008 cost the world economy trillions of US dollars, Chernobyl an estimated $567 billion -
.
"The [2008 financial] crisis played a significant role in the failure of key businesses, declines in consumer wealth estimated in trillions of US dollars, and a downturn in economic activity leading to the 2008–2012 global recession and contributing to the European sovereign-debt crisis."
.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Financial_crisis_of_2007%E2%80%932008
.
" Chernobyl 1986: $15 billion estimated cost of direct loss. It is estimated that the damages could accumulate to €235 billion for Ukraine and €201 billion for Belarus in the thirty years following the accident;"
.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_disasters_by_cost

I'm for very radical bank reform. The left claims the problem is already solved by Dodd-Frank. Or at least they make that claim when they're defending Dodd-Frank. In other contexts, they abandon that ridiculous claim.

According to the very left leaning CEPR, Bloomberg overestimated the subsidy by at least a factor of three.

But none of this even addresses my point. Would you rather live in a world without Wall St. or a world without Chernobyl? Even with all the subsidizes and crashes, even Joseph Stiglitz would concede that Wall St. has been a net positive. Who would claim that Chernobyl was a net positive?

"Would you rather live in a world without Wall St. or a world without Chernobyl?"
.
This reminds me of the argument between two kids in the movie "Stand by Me", regarding who would win in a fight between Superman and Mighty Mouse, and the decision is that Superman would win because Mighty Mouse is just a cartoon.
.
That is, at some point a conversation gets so silly that it's just best to walk away...

You already answered the question rhetorically. "Which cost the world more money?" I responded with why you're wrong and now you want to quit which is fine but let's be clear. You believe Wall St. is worse than Chernobyl.
.
Also, after the fifth time you claim you're walking away but don't, it's probably best to stop saying you're going to walk away.

Unbelievable. Ridiculous. Two guys are able to terrorize and paralyze a metropolis of eight million, with pressure cookers and handguns. An army of thousands, with most sophisticated modern weapons and gadgets - armored cars, night-vision goggles, helicopters - still can't catch a teenager on the run.

I found it too somewhat ridiculous to have all that force hunting a teenager.
.
Police, though, says that there might be IED's planted around.
.
It's the guys whose lives are at risk who should make the call.

Because Bostonians are not armed. No concealed carry in Massachusetts. Gun ownership highly disapprobated. This means the denizens of the cradle of liberty cower in their closets. If this happened in Phoenix nobody would be the least bit concerned. Bring the punks on.

He's using the CSA definition, which basically considers areas heavily tied to Boston as being part of the metro, such as Providence, RI and that sort of thing. (and there is a fair argument for that definition, there are plenty of commuters from there and commuter services and that sort of thing)

The MSA, which is the more conventional metro definition (just the city and it's own suburbs/exurbs), is about 4.4 million.

Well, the US isn't a police state and there isn't some sort of conspiratorial system of complete surveillance, so I'm not sure how exactly you'd expect them to catch a teenager on the run in a major metropolis in less than 72 hours (which, coincidentally, they did).

I know it's popular to pretend America has amazing secret databases of their citizens faces whom they can track via satellites, but despite what the crazies like to say, that simply isn't true (at least not yet) and catching a fugitive still requires large-scale manhunts.

The American Revolution started here, and my ancestors were among those besieging the Red Coats in Boston. Where were yours? At least we do not have crackpot, neo-secessionist, gun nuts who think every lunatic should have a gun instead of a padded cell.

In retrospect, the FBI might have done better to identify the Tsarnaev brothers prior to making their photographs public. The timing of events suggests that the public airing of the photographs spurred the hasty shooting spree. A little more circumspection might have allowed police to take them into custody before the men realized that they had been identified. Of course, hindsight is 20/20, and the FBI was probably worried that any delay might give the men time to perpetrate another attack.

A commentator on the BBC made an interesting point. He mentioned that the FBI typically does not publicly broadcast names or photos for fear of tipping off their handlers, and those higher in the chain of command. He thought that the FBI finally publicized the images once they were fairly convinced these guys were acting alone. I'm not in the FBI, but it seemed to be a plausible explanation.

I'm sure they would have been fine if they'd had more time, but I'm guessing they didn't want to spend more than the initial 24 hours interviewing people and checking databases once they identified the bombers' faces on the cameras.

After all, those bombers had just randomly places IEDs within crowds and that's generally something one would expect the authorities to move quickly on.

"That makes the attack the most deadly act of terror in America since September 11th 2001, apart from mass shootings."
.
Good point. We have a lot of mass shootings. So, where are we in terms of fixing that particular problem? I think the Senate just had a vote, as I recall...

For mass shootings you will have greater headway if you address the "why" rather than the "how".

This bombing shows that even if you outlaw guns people can just make bombs for less than $100 a piece. That means you should be asking the question WHY young males (mostly white) get to the point where they say "f--k you world," go down fighting, and try to take as many souls with them as possible.

Dealing with the 'how' in the case of mass shootings involvings removing fundamental rights from Americans. Given that such a small number of people die from shootings each year, this is not justifiable. You could, however, dramatically reduce such incidents through targeted and intelligent action. For example, do away with laws requiring gun-free zones at schools (what a joke that is), and increase the federal reporting of mentally-ill individuals.

"Dealing with the 'how' in the case of mass shootings involves removing fundamental rights from Americans."
.
Not true. No where in the US Constitution does it say that it's an American fundamental right for the mentally ill and felons to own semi-automatic weapons.
.
"Given that such a small number of people die from shootings each year, this is not justifiable."
.
Are you willing to tell 36,000 American mothers per year that the lives of their children are not justifiable?
.
"For example, do away with laws requiring gun-free zones at schools (what a joke that is), and increase the federal reporting of mentally-ill individuals."
.
Why would you invite Adam Lanza to bring his guns to your children's school?
.
And, how are you going to keep the mentally ill from buying guns if Republican lawmakers won't allow background checks?

The right wing gun nuts simply [and I do mean simply] believe that every lunatic has a right to a gun, not a padded cell. The really evil ones are the armaments industrialists and their equally evil mouthpiece, the NRA. The more people killed, the better for business, and the blood money profits.

McJakome, the NRA's solution to gun violence does appear to be to arm everyone. And, if that doesn't work, to arm them more.
.
Which to me sounds totally nuts. And, given that apx. 90% of the US electorate supports background checks, I assume it sounds nuts to most Americans as well.

It would not have mattered what immigration policy was in place; the Tsarnaevs are White Europeans, they would have qualified for entry under any past immigration regimes; including the pre-1950 system.

Yet again we are witnessing senseless murder perpetrated by young men who had their whole lives ahead of them and were both academically bright and successful. Unfortunately for the people of Boston they were also Muslims who it appears had become radicalised to hate and murder. This is not a one off scenario but happens again and again and has nothing to do with poverty or despair.
What it means for society is quite shocking - no matter how mild and well mannered a Moslem might be, it will not guarantee that he or his off spring will not become radicalised by Islamic hatred to commit horrendous crimes in the name of Islam.
This of course makes it especially scary when one considers that soon Islamic countries will have the Atomic bomb (Pakistan is already there). Imagine if this bomb had been a small hand held nuclear device - Boston would no longer exist.

Maybe, maybe not. Having spent most of my life in Boston, I assure you that the city is not high on the terrorist's list of targets. It's a vibrant city that's very ethnic (Irish, Italian, East Asian and Blacks pretty much sum up the population) and it's a bastion of liberalism.

If terrorists think twice, they'd go after popular targets (NYC or DC - been there, done that) or conservative cities (anything in the south, midwest or mountain area).

Trying to make a political/religious point by attacking the Boston Marathon just indicates that these two guys didn't do their homework.

"What it means for society is quite shocking - no matter how mild and well mannered a Moslem might be, it will not guarantee that he or his off spring will not become radicalised by Islamic hatred..."
.
Interesting theory. In the meantime, some white dude from Mississippi just sent ricin to a Congressman and President Obama.
.
What does it say about white dudes from Mississippi? That, no matter how much we try, they'll be trained and radicalized to hate anyone engaged in public service?

The probability that "white dudes from Missisippi" will try to blow up as many innocent bystanders as possible in the world is still less than young radicalised Moslems - Iraq, Syria, Pakistan, Israel,India- you name it Moslems still lead the way on mass carnage of innocent people. Sorry to be politically incorrect.

Terrorists are not asking you to have "tolerance" for their views - they are demanding that you adopt them or die. I know you think if we can just "celebrate diversity" enough that will change, but I would think they have even less in common with the secular, western left than they do the conservative west. If terrorists thought even once, let alone twice, they might reach the reasonable conclusion that killing 8-year old children - whether they be from Atlanta or Chicago - is a good way to have you views rejected outright.

Did I write that McVeigh was a Muslim ? Don't think so.
I wrote that if you analysed random acts of civillian carnage caused by bombs throughout the world I would estimate that 95% of them would perpetrated by young radicalised Moslems. Do you have a problem with this? If you are a Moslem I think you should! Am I now being politically incorrect?

"I wrote that if you analysed random acts of civillian carnage caused by bombs throughout the world I would estimate that 95% of them would perpetrated by young radicalised Moslems."
.
And you would be wrong. In the last sixty years Christians have killed way more folks via bombs than Muslims.
.
Go to Wikipedia and look up the number of deaths due to bombs by Christians in WW2, the Korean War, the Vietnam War, Gulf War 1 and Gulf War 2. Compared to Muslim-perpetrated bombs, it's not even close.
.
You're facts are so far off, you're not even spelling "Muslim" correctly.

Sorry Dialectic18 I'm not refering to wars between nations. I'm talking about "young radicalised Muslims" targeting and blowing up innocent civillians, in the last few years - I thought it was obvious. I'm discusing the article, not man's inhumanity to man.
I assume you are a Muslim. So its only my spellings that bother you? - sad.

"Sorry Dialectic18 I'm not refering to wars between nations."
.
You linked Muslims to bombs to the death of civilians.
.
Conveniently, you ignored the link of Christians to bombs to the death of civilians.
.
Therefore, you're analysis is incomplete, and factually incorrect.

No, it's clear that leonmen is referring to acts of terrorism — bombs intended to do harm to the civilian population. Injury to civilians as collateral damage in warfare may be terrible, but it is not terrorism as is being discussed here. It is an entirely separate subject.

Wanker, terrorists do not give one whit whether or not your city is non-white and liberal. They simply want to kill the most Americans in the most dramatic way possible. Like it or not, we're all in this together.

"No, it's clear that leonmen is referring to acts of terrorism — bombs intended to do harm to the civilian population. Injury to civilians as collateral damage in warfare may be terrible, but it is not terrorism as is being discussed here."
.
Air Force General Curtis LeMay disagreed with you:
.
"I suppose if I had lost the war, I would have been tried as a war criminal.... all war is immoral..."
.http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Curtis_LeMay

Yes lets blame this on the music! For the record the"violent rapper" Timur's lyrics are inspired in style and content by such "violent rappers" as RZA, Dre, DMX and Eminem. And you know how fanatic US hip hop fans are well known for bombing public places.... oh wait...

MAN'S INHUMANITY TO MAN HAS REACHED HORRIFIC PROPORTIONS IN SEVERAL PARTS OF THE WORLD TODAY.... IT IS AMUSING TO NOTE THAT WHILE ALL RELIGIONS PREACH LOVE, BROTHERHOOD AND PEACE....WHAT IS PRACTICED IS JUST THE OPPOSITE..
IT IS TIME THAT RELIGION IS RESTRICTED INDOORS RATHER THAN EXHIBITED ON THE STREETS MOSTLY RESULTING IN AND EXHIBITED IN THE FORM OF VIOLENCE...
UNFORTUNATELY, POLITICIANS TODAY DO NOT HAVE EITHER THE STATURE OR THE GUTS TO RESTRICT RELIGIOUS BELIEFS AND PRACTICES SPILLING ON TO THE STREETS, PLAYING HAVOC AND CREATING PANIC, TERROR AND SPILLING THE BLOOD OF INNOCENT CITIZENS.

Do not interpret the actions of a small, misguided, violent group to be similar to the religious beliefs that BILLIONS of other people in our world practice.
History is full of antitheists (Stalin, Hitler, etc.) who have committed horrific actions against mankind. Do not be fooled into thinking that further pushing religion "indoors" will suddenly make mankind act more humanely toward each other.

Your comment is impressive but accept the fact there is not way to exterminate all BAD people in the world,.... regardless that "all religions preach love" we all know that human beings can also hate and kill.

Those 'driven to' such acts are not operating within the realm of rationality unless they truly appreciate the psychological and media fallout, and simply want to stir up trouble. Usually those orchestrating such moves understand the value to their cause of the publicity, and will declare their complicity and sponsorship to the media. On the other hand, knowing the US's intelligence capabilities, they might just keep quiet. These guys mey have fallen to propaganda from any of a number of nutty groups in existence.

That many of the nuttiest and most active groups, internationally, seem to be variants of Muslim jihad seems to be a matter of fact. And these groups probably inspire many Muslims by reinforcing their experiences in the world, including thier native lands.

I'm sorry, the death last week of three innocent people is somehow funny to you??

I'd like you to think hard (if you're capable) about what the families of those three are currently going through and then rethink your post. And while you're at it, why don't you get down on your knees and thank whoever you pray to that it wasn't you. You may want to add a prayer or two for those families and the other victims.

My only and very humble hope is that after the remaining suspect is caught and rightfully convicted, he is brought into the public square, the flesh is stripped off his body (slowly), and then fed back to him -- while his family watches. Oh, and we broadcast this process to the world through international news networks and live streams. I don't think it would last more than, say, 24h. Like I said, very humble hope. A sort of friendly warning message.

Too much trouble, let's just saw his arms and legs off, without anasthetics of course, like what they did to all those who lost their limbs in the bombing. An eye for an eye, a limb for a limb, isn't that what Islamic law is all about?

Posts like this are simply evidence that, in our quest to rid the world of hatred, we've already lost.

No doubt these people deserve to be brought to justice. Lowering ourselves to the level of those who seek to do us harm doesn't further our cause any. If anything, it makes us more like them.

I hope we can heal ourselves and move beyond this terrible act without losing any more of the moral fiber that makes our country special. My thoughts and prayers are with the families of those impacted by this terrible act.

I have no desire to rid the world of hatred. People can hate us all they want. I just want to scare them to the point that they would never engage in acts of mass terrorism against our innocent civilians.

What you should actually feel "lucky" about is that there are people like us who do the work behind the scenes to allow people like you to wax quixotic about these ridiculous end-state visions of "a world without hate." Newsflash: Not going to happen. The goal is to spread civilization, encourage growth and progress, and defend liberty. In a world with bad people -- and there are bad people -- those things can't happen if you aren't able to strike fear in their hearts. Have a nice day.

Make no mistake, I feel no better about the existence of people with such dark mindsets as yours as I do the ones mentioned in this article. It is a reality that I have to live with, though. I'm hardly someone who sits around dreaming of a perfect world... but at least I can tell the difference between justice and the barbaric solution to this problem that you posited.

We can agree on one thing though: the goal is to spread civilization. Have fun explaining to me how flaying someone in front of their own family is civilized.

But let's not get lost in the task of rationalizing our thoughts. Let's focus on what's important: do you feel better yet?

The fact that this heinous event occurred means, by definition, that we failed to deter it. They considered the consequences of their actions, calculated--not necessarily literally, but in a sense--the risks, and proceeded with the maiming of almost 200 people, most of them American citizens.

"What you should actually feel 'lucky' about is that there are people like us who do the work behind the scenes to allow people like you to wax quixotic about these ridiculous end-state visions of 'a world without hate.'"

Pardon, but what exactly do you mean when you say "people like us who do the work behind the scenes"? What is this "work" you are speaking of? Surely you don't mean to suggest you are doing anything at all like what your first post suggested.

Your April 20th article in the print edition is the perfect example of why I dropped my subscription.

You go out of your way to blame 'right wing extremists' who believe they have God given and therefore Constitutionally protected gun rights AND THEN you tamp down any concern that the terrorists were actually (gulp) foreign muslim nationals.

Though you can change your writing online - you can't in the written edition. The egg is on your face.

Btw - to the editor: bombs are already illegal in America. Did it stop the blast?

Now take a clue and apply toward guns.

You magazine will continue downhill until you again obtain writers that can think.

Yes, expect a lot of cognitive dissonance from these media dufuses who foolishly rushed to blame "right-wing extremists." One would think that an attack with a distinctively Muslim extremist modus operandi would incline them to blame the obvious suspects, but media people do not scale high on rationality.

Plus, it doesn't fit into their view that anyone who disagrees with their oh-so-enlightened opinions must be some sort of demi-human incapable of rational thought. Since demi-humans are incapable of thinking clearly, then the state needs to take away their rights and think for them-- for their own protection and for the protection of everyone else, of course.

Chechens belong to the Caucasoid type, exhibiting traits typical of European and Caucasian peoples. The majority of Chechens are dark-haired (medium to dark brown or black), but there are Chechens with blonde or red hair, while eye color ranges from blue to brown and skin tone is typically rather pale and light (though there are some Chechens with olive complexions)."

The area in which they live is highly diverse. The area where the shootout occurred last night is known as an Armenian center, full of Armenian markets and of course churches.

Two quick comments:

1. Large numbers of the people who live in that part of Cambridge and in Watertown can connect their lives and certainly their ancestry to terrible events. The Armenian genocide. Wars in Central America. The Kosovo/Serbian war. Bosnia. And so on. So there is always an excuse if you need to find one.

2. But only Muslims seem drawn to blowing up bystanders. At least since the Irish gave that up - and of course Boston is extremely Irish.

Yes, the city that did more than any other in the US to give aid, comfort and sanctuary to terrorists operating in the UK now gets a sample of what it implicitly condoned. There's a certain symmetry in that.

Why don't I bring up the "coffin ships" that starving Irish braved as a last chance to avoid starving to death at the hands of the Sasenach [English] occupiers? [Including my own relatives, though none of us raged against the English.]

Were all English people behind or in support of that brutal occupation? No more so than all Bostonians or all the Irish in Boston were with the IRA.

My Irish relatives did not support the IRA, and I resent your aspersions. In my neighborhood an IRA cache of weapons was reported to the police and seized.

You and others offering the same ethnocentric and historically inaccurate nonsense should be thoroughly ashamed of yourselves.

Don't call me "lad" unless you are in your 80's. I was merely pointing out that dredging up past injustice in relation to present crime is to continue rather than resolve the world's ills.

Hatred and mistrust breed more of the same. Americans are supposed to have no historical knowledge [inaccurate to the point of falsehood]. However, it is true enough that my English colonist ancestors [who drove out the red coats] have mingled their blood with German immigrants and coffin ship survivors [giving you myself].

I am an American, and not one of the clannish [or tribal] xenophobes who are continuing their disgraceful attacks on the President, even as this tragedy continues to unfold.

I know better than to make remarks about what some people deserve because the didn't choose better ancestors.

YOU are the only one who brought up the notion of "what some people deserve". My only observation was to note the "symmetry" of it all - a symmetry that certainly exists. Symmetry and 'justice' are not the same concept; now symmetry and 'irony' ....

By that logic, I would think there's plenty of symmetry to the terrorist attacks the UK has endured and all the horrible atrocities the UK government has directly committed or indirectly supported throughout its history.

You are wrong. I am a product of diversity, as are many people in the Commonwealth of Massachusetts. This is one of the safest, most educated and most civilized areas of the US. To my English ancestors, who forced out the Red Coats, were added German and Irish immigrants.

Our strength is diversity, our enemy is xenophobia. Our strength is education, our enemy is ignorance. Our success is based on toleration, intolerance would be our downfall.

Just checked. The problem isn't my prejudice, but rather my internet provider. :)
.
BTW, you know that kind kind of comment is an ad hominem, and that it's a logical fallacy, right? Please tell me you know this. :)

One paper by one academic is opinion, not verified fact. In addition to which diversity is too amorphous. I did, and do, not maintain that all ethnicities and world views can coexist without problems.

PC be damned, I tell it as I see it. Fundamentalist, religious, totalitarian, xenophobic groups are dangerous and are the least likely to be able to get along with liberal, scientific-rationalist people. Significant numbers of both groups can be found in America, with the second group predominant around Boston.

"Fundamentalist, religious, totalitarian, xenophobic groups are dangerous" and our govt welcomes them all. Somali, Sudanese, Yemeni immigration has skyrocketed in the last few decades. More democratic voters you see. But don't let that fog up the rose colored glasses. Kumbaya!

Some of our commenting friends here seem to have a bit of cognitive dissonance. An awful lot of mass murder is being committed by folks raised Christian, or some semblance thereof.
.
But, Christianity is a peaceful religion, right? :)

When Christians commit mass murder for a political cause ("War is politics through different means", Clauswitz), many folks in the West justify it.
.
When Muslims do it, folks in the West often demonize it.
.
However, General LeMay had it right when talking about the mass murder of Japanese civilians via aerial bombing in WW2 -
.
"I suppose if I had lost the war, I would have been tried as a war criminal.... Every soldier thinks something of the moral aspects of what he is doing. But all war is immoral..."
.http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Curtis_LeMay

How did those kids get guns? Those demanding thorough background checks for incoming foreign nationals, students, etc. should first back the current bill that stipulates thorough background checks for potential gun owners.

The answers when they are finally revealed are simple.
And predictable.

But the key is The Response.
I hope that America responds smartly.
And not get Medieval.
_____________________________

Diversity is a double edged sword.
And even this episode brings us better acquaintance with the REAL RISKS of Islam.
Religious profiling and ethnic profiling though racist, is necessary for effective counter terrorism in our time.
____________________________

Today there will be at least 5 bombing attacks around the world that are more deadly than The Marathon Attack.
Syria is on fire. Pakistan is girding for an election. Iraq has daily assassinations of political candidates.

And this pace is unrelenting in the past two decades.
And the bombings will continue at a Marathon pace.
And over 90% of them originate in Islam for the past generation.
Today over 90% of the bombing victims of Muslim Bombs are fellow Muslims.
_____________________________

SEE SOMETHING SAY SOMETHING.
And we all have to listen to our fear and see the reality as it stands.
Stay Safe--where ever you are.

30,000 people died in car crashes last year, yet few people live in fear of getting in a car. If you want to spend your life living in fear of the astronomical risk of dying due to a terrorist act, that's your business. When you propose to upend the lives of millions of innocent people through active racial profiling for the sake of your mindless paranoia you just validate terrorism as an effective tool.